femme fatale's banned

[Sammael]

I here on behalf of femme fatale.

She got warrned and banned for this post

it is the job of the user, when choosing signature, to ensure that the sig will not be taller than 450 pixels, at any time. Should the signature exceed this limit, the administrators will notify the user, and possibly alter the signature, per the system described in the rules.

she posted that. apparently, this happened Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:04 am

Link: Original thread: viewtopic.php?f=95&p=2190679#p2190679
Spam thread: viewtopic.php?f=95&p=2190696#p2190696

Moderator who issued the warning: Eärendil

Defence


i quoted him and bolded the the administrators will notify the user, and possibly alter the signature, part as that didnt happen in my case when my sig was renmoved, i bolded the the administrators will notify the user, and possibly alter the signature, zetahul reponded with that responce and I bolded the bit that never happened to me and laughed .. because there was a hole drama over it when it happened to me ... theres a thread on there somewhere ombusmans

awaken was asking about his sig size,
zetahul reponded with that responce and I bolded the bit that never happened to me and laughed ..

---

She believes it is not spam because she was highlighting/bolding the important section of the quote because of recent events when she had her signature rights removed and not told why.

Sammael On Behalf Of Femme Fatale

[Empy]

She only posted out of spite (not a hatred kind of spite but spite none the less) that she was warned before. Her post had nothing to do with Awaken Knight him asking if just 1 sig in his rotation making the it over 450pixels still constituted it breaking a rule.

You jumped in for your own propaganda purposes. Okay? No.

[BenjaminMS]

Just had a look at it... and despite I like FF, she just outright spammed with that post. And she indeed got warned for spamming on several occasions before. The blame only lies with her. No matter why she did it, she did it and knowingly broke the rules so.

[Zeratul]

the quoted post was not a direct copy from the rules, hence why it was in regular text, and not in Administrator style

[Lithium]

the quoted post was not a direct copy from the rules, hence why it was in regular text, and not in Administrator style

thats a strong point

[~Invisible fox~]

I've been asked to give a response by FF:

I won't justify myself just yet as to why I gave the warning, as she has been verbally warned before not to spam on several occasions.

i would, however, like to mention that instead of using the forums Ombudsman, which is here for this very reason, she felt the need to e-mail the game admin about it.

Mod, because that was the link provided in the login, where it says you are banned.
The log in says if banned and you do not know why, contact Admin, and gives that link.
Perhaps that needs to be changed???? To Contact Ombusman.
and link to them instead.

[Zeratul]

We do not know where to alter that... We couldnt see the function in the ACP, but we might just have missed it...

[shooty08]

I honestly think that she has a good point, based on recent events, her post was completely justified. Someone messed up, and she didn't get the treatment the rules stated she should get. She was bolding the part she felt was important everyone saw, so they knew their rights. Its even less of a case against her that it wasn't in mod color, because she wasn't even directing it at a mod, but more as a general public announcement.

She may have partially posted it out of spite, but can you honestly say you've never posted anything that you knew would piss someone off because they were recently rude to you?

[RoKeT]

Yes because it points the point she meant, a lot of people do it Ear... No offense... I've seen Admins, Mods, Ombudsman... All of you I've seen do it lol... Let me guess you want posts lol, I'll never find them just know they exist lol

[deni]

It's spam.

It consists of a smiley only and does not contribute to the discussion at hand in any way (the later is the important one).

One smiley posts are not always seen as spam - as long as they express the author's opinion/feelings/comments about a post made and contribute to the topic/discussion (e.g. a rolling eye smiley after a post where someone claims to have farmed x quad of naq expresses that the poster does not believe the quoted stamement and thinks it is ridicolous - thus post is no spam).



While we do tolerate spam to a certain degree in most sections, there are sections like "Bugs" or "Forum specific issues" where we do not.

This has been stressed countless times already.

[shooty08]

It's spam.

It consists of a smiley only and does not contribute to the discussion at hand in any way (the later is the important one).

One smiley posts are not always seen as spam - as long as they express the author's opinion/feelings/comments about a post made and contribute to the topic/discussion (e.g. a rolling eye smiley after a post where someone claims to have farmed x quad of naq expresses that the poster does not believe the quoted stamement and thinks it is ridicolous - thus post is no spam).



While we do tolerate spam to a certain degree in most sections, there are sections like "Bugs" or "Forum specific issues" where we do not.

This has been stressed countless times already.

also...

Yes because it points the point she meant, a lot of people do it Ear... No offense... I've seen Admins, Mods, Ombudsman... All of you I've seen do it lol... Let me guess you want posts lol, I'll never find them just know they exist lol

Sure, quoting a bit, bolding part is fine, but then just a smiley?

South Africa gave everything to try and stay in their own FIFA World Cup™ but in the end their victory was in vain as they and France both exit the competition.

like this Eary?

[Empy]

It's spam.

It consists of a smiley only and does not contribute to the discussion at hand in any way (the later is the important one).

One smiley posts are not always seen as spam - as long as they express the author's opinion/feelings/comments about a post made and contribute to the topic/discussion (e.g. a rolling eye smiley after a post where someone claims to have farmed x quad of naq expresses that the poster does not believe the quoted stamement and thinks it is ridicolous - thus post is no spam).



While we do tolerate spam to a certain degree in most sections, there are sections like "Bugs" or "Forum specific issues" where we do not.

This has been stressed countless times already.

also...

Yes because it points the point she meant, a lot of people do it Ear... No offense... I've seen Admins, Mods, Ombudsman... All of you I've seen do it lol... Let me guess you want posts lol, I'll never find them just know they exist lol

Sure, quoting a bit, bolding part is fine, but then just a smiley?

South Africa gave everything to try and stay in their own FIFA World Cup™ but in the end their victory was in vain as they and France both exit the competition.

like this Eary?

Except the topic was about Awaken Knight and his signature... and she took it and made it about her getting a warning, not even recently. That she just posted a smiley or whatever she did, doesn't matter... it was 100% off topic.

[Mordack]

I believe that the warning was justified.

The point which she was or wasn't making is irrelevant to this particular issue, and so is the furore over e-mail links in the ACP. I'm looking at her post in context, and I don't think it was productive or relevant. No matter how valid your point is or isn't, they should always be expressed with decorum.

[Jack]

It's spam.

It consists of a smiley only and does not contribute to the discussion at hand in any way (the later is the important one).

The post itself wasn't spam. She made a valid argument. Now whether or not that argument belonged in that particular topic is the issue here.

I believe that the warning was justified.

The point which she was or wasn't making is irrelevant to this particular issue, and so is the furore over e-mail links in the ACP. I'm looking at her post in context, and I don't think it was productive or relevant. No matter how valid your point is or isn't, they should always be expressed with decorum.

I'm not sure if I agree, I am not sure what you are saying. If you are saying that the argument she made was irrelevant to the thread thus spam, then I'll concur.

[Mordack]

It's spam.

It consists of a smiley only and does not contribute to the discussion at hand in any way (the later is the important one).

The post itself wasn't spam. She made a valid argument. Now whether or not that argument belonged in that particular topic is the issue here.

I believe that the warning was justified.

The point which she was or wasn't making is irrelevant to this particular issue, and so is the furore over e-mail links in the ACP. I'm looking at her post in context, and I don't think it was productive or relevant. No matter how valid your point is or isn't, they should always be expressed with decorum.

I'm not sure if I agree, I am not sure what you are saying. If you are saying that the argument she made was irrelevant to the thread thus spam, then I'll concur.

I don't think requoting something and bolding a certain extact constitutes an 'argument' to be honest.

I will try and catch you on MSN soon to discuss it. Hopefully I can clarify myself.